Faisal Saeed Al Mutar: The Contradiction of Islam

Faisal Saeed Al Mutar: The Contradiction of Islam

Faisal Saeed Al Mutar is a columnist, speaker and founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement. Originally from Iraq, Faisal now lives in the USA. In this short video, he speaks about the religion of his former country.

SIMILAR ARTICLES

15 COMMENTS

At the end he says “human rights trumps religion.” On what basis? “Human rights” are nowhere to be found in nature, the laws of physics, etc. — they are purely a human cultural construct, like the Quran or the Ten Commandments. So how is his faith in “human rights” different from a religion, and how is the enforcement of “human rights” with laws, police, militaries, etc. different from how any religious theocracy operates? To me, these are all just aggressive memes that seek power over human minds and societies, and none are inherently more valid than any others.

One of the aspects of human rights is that they are based on the golden rule. Do you want to be water boarded? No certainly not! So this IS NO OPTION! Human rights should triumph all ideologies. That it is not the case is a result of agression and intollerance! It is not a field of being sarcastic only to sound wise!

Actually, Faisal said that “human rights triumphs [trumps] cultural and religious rights“. Are human rights a cultural construct? Certainly. But do they incite people to inflict suffering and death on each other? They actually encourage them to do the opposite. Religious constructs on the other hand…. well there are countless examples of the kind of misery those brings to humankind.

The position you are taking is a typical example of moral relativism. The notion that diametrically opposed examples of the human condition are on a level plane with each other because they are brought about by different “cultural constructs”. It leads to the insane belief that tyranny is just as desirable as freedom, pain just as desirable as pleasure, etc…

It is by definition a morally repugnant and mentally deranged position to adopt.

PS: BTW human rights don’t need to be enforced, they need to be defended.

Another precious comment from Imperius, what if god is no where seen in nature instead?
“MORALITY” that justify human rights are seen in every species, not god.
Then, what about a “second nature” of the human species (very well observed by Nietzsche)?
Afteral, culture is a natural strategy of survival.

I’m with you. And you can also roll in democracy, justice and other such nonsense. The genesis of these wholly idealistic things is the political mind’s desire to promise something that will sound endearing to the people and therefore generate support. They are like Santa Claus for adults. They really are there – honestly! Somehow they are never quite there enough to be seen. And of course the politicians never deliver them. It is not only religion that is an opium for the masses.

So how is his faith in “human rights” different from a religion, and
how is the enforcement of “human rights” with laws, police,
militaries, etc. different from how any religious theocracy operates?
To me, these are all just aggressive memes that seek power over human
minds and societies, and none are inherently more valid than any
others

Contradiction seems your nature.

Not really many real theocracies are in practise in the world, perhaps Tibet, where human rights would not be at risk (how ironical this sounds).

Maybe these quotes are enough to clear the need not to make human rights relative (curious enough, this beautiful quotations came from an author that is religious, but perhaps in some einsteinian sense.:

“if the demands of ethics will not become as universal as the achievements of physical sciences, all humanity´s dynamics, seemingly unescapable, of human history, would be a delusion and no more than a dream”

R. Martins

or

“Human experience acknowledges that there are no paradises, but that we depend ONLY on our choices that represent no more than costs and gains, from opposed views. These choices become even more crucial and difficult to make as far as itl represents our loyalty for all human companions-from past, present and future-that made their efforts and sacrificed for it; or choose to betrayal them – to accomplish what comes throughout ages and goes further in the horizon of time.”

So how is his faith in “human rights” different from a religion, and how is the enforcement of “human rights” with laws, police, militaries, etc. different from how any religious theocracy operates?

It’s a pretty major difference. Religion relies on God as the sole basis of right and wrong, take it or leave it. Human rights as used here does no such thing – it relies on our own ongoing negotiation of what is right and long.